What distinction does the text suggest is more core than 'hard' versus 'soft' when evaluating fields like astronomy?
Answer
Experimental versus observational fields.
The text argues that the core operational difference for fields like astronomy is whether their data collection relies on direct experimentation or passive observation across large scales, rather than the philosophical label of 'hard' or 'soft'.
Related Questions
On what methodological differences does the historical division between hard and soft sciences generally hinge?According to the methodology comparison table, what is Astronomy's primary methodology?Which characteristic is frequently noted about conclusions reached in soft sciences?What makes the classification of astronomy particularly interesting regarding its laboratory environment?What provides the strongest argument for classifying astronomy as a hard science?What is the main reason critics cite against astronomy's hard science status?What does the debate over the hard/soft dichotomy often dissolve into, according to some scientists?Approximately when did the terms 'hard' and 'soft' science emerge?In many national grant systems, under which general category is astronomy typically funded?What distinction does the text suggest is more core than 'hard' versus 'soft' when evaluating fields like astronomy?